Talk:Battle of Caernarvon IV
What sort of grammatical or stylistic errors are in this article? I put a great deal of time in putting this together and feel that stylistically this is a very clean piece and would really like to know what you consider objectionable. I have gone through and did some clean up work on some sentence structural issues that I did find on a new reading, but I would say now that it should meet stylistic standards. If there are any other problems, please let me know.--David Falkayn 14:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)David Falkayn :This article lacks sufficient wikification and most of the red links are can be fixed. Also the title of the article as it appears in the first sentence needs to be in bold print. :Plus there is no source for this article, this stuff would take about five minutes to fix up and everything should be set. - 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC) I've done as you requested. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done.--David Falkayn 17:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)David Falkayn I do not think I can do anything more to improve this article. Right now I am feeling terribly, terribly disenchanted with this entire process. I have done everything you've asked for and it still does not apparently meet your approval. I'm too old and too tired to waste my time tilting at windmills doing something that is supposed to be fun and a hobby. I spent a great deal of time and effort (an entire morning) putting this article together and then going back and making the corrections you requested and honestly believe that I did a good job. However, if you do not think so, that is your prerogative, it is your site, your rules. Do as you wish with the article. If you wish to delete it, go ahead and delete it and be done with it. I do not believe it needs any further work and will not expend any more of my valuable time on it. I have learned a valuable lesson here and will keep this in mind in the future.--David Falkayn 15:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)David Falkayn Um, you actually aren't missing much else from what I can see. It's little stuff that I tend to miss too, I'm fairly new at this myself and even my pages come under a lot of scrutiny. Ships names also need to be linked, like the Sutherland for example. Also Race and Government names, like the Dominion. It's just so that they link to other pages with relevant information, and yes, it's a little nitpicky, but it does keep the site clean. --Cpt Kaziarl Nanaki 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC) :Wow, you're overreacting! The tag was still on the page because I didn't look at your article until just before I edited it. - 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC) :First, allow me to apologize. I was being unfair to you , Jrofeta, for that, I'm sorry. Perhaps I am a little defensive and over-sensitive regarding the copy tags, but sometimes I perceive that there is something of a double standard regarding the standards contributors to this site are being held to and comments such as this: "He may still be learning, but I felt he deserved nomination, if for nothing else than contributions "in line" with our mission, stuff from the "old days", and not just the newest TrekBBS dime-a-dozen fanfics." Star Trek Expanded Universe: Contributor of the Month, do not make matters any easier. To me, that comes across as a 'smoking gun' indicating possible bias against TrekBBS contributors such as myself whose work is hardly "dime a dozen fanfics." I and the other TrekBBS writers who contribute here put forth a great deal of effort in our work and we want to make solid contributions here, but to have our work dismissed in such a casual manner--well, I'm sure you can see the problem from my point of view at least. For my part, I should not have been so quick on the trigger with you, and again, I apologize for misjudging you. Misconceptions and prejudice can cut both ways and I confess to being guilty of it here in your case. :I think to a great extent, this was a perfect example of poor communications. The two of us were talking by each other instead of to each other. I would ask that, when you flag an article either for copyediting or deletion that you explain why on the article's talk page. I guess the reason why you don't do so--besides time constraints--is because you feel that if the person is truly interested in making their work better, they'll ask you on the talk page. But you see, this is where the first breakdown in communications takes place. Just seeing the copyedit or deletion template with no reason given as to why can immediately trigger feelings of defensiveness as it did in my case--especially when there are already conceptions or misconceptions being felt. If I or other contributors see the template and then go to the talk page and see the reasons why, then we can go back and make the corrections that are needed. :You did a very good job in telling me what I needed to do in correcting my article after I asked you and I did the best I could to make those corrections and I thank you for your help in making sense of this often arcane wiki world. Speaking for myself, I'd like to make more contributions here, but what's important to me also is the perception that my contributions are welcome. I don't mind being held to standards--so long as I'm held to the same standards as everyone else and as long as I feel that my work is respected. I and my fellow TrekBBS writers who contribute here do not write "dime a dozen fanfics" as even a cursory reading our works would show. We are in the process of weaving a very complex and rich tapestry and we would like to contribute to the general community here. :My apologies for the long missive, but I had a lot to say and felt it needed to be said.--David Falkayn 15:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)David Falkayn ::No worries, these things happen from time to time. You're right about putting an explanation with the tag, I should have put it straight on the talk page after I tagged the article. ::As for TrekBBS fanfics, they have as much right to be here as stuff from the "old days". Your contributions and those by fellow TrekBBSers are welcome here. – 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)